Present perfect

[bhaisahab]

It depends on how you read the original question:

is there any situation in English when present perfect used with since/fordenotes an action no longer taking place/happening in the present, but has, of course, present consequences? Or there is no such situation whatsoever?

I think that my "I've been to Italy twice since my daughter died" does denote an action no longer taking place/happening in the present but having present consequences.

Yes I know, at first I wasn't sure what he meant hence my comments in post #2. In post #3 he clarifies (a bit) and, taking the two together, I came to my conclusion in post #9.

[5jj]

Yes I know, at first I wasn't sure what he meant hence my comments in post #2. In post #3 he clarifies (a bit) and, taking the two together, I came to my conclusion in post #9.

Right. Let's see if liliumcandidum has any comments/questions.

[liliumcandidum]

Greetings and thanks for answering me!
The idea is that in Romanian, students understand Pr Pf by associating it with these tenses of the Indicative:

Indicative Prezent (similar to Pres Simple in Engl)
John has lived here for 10 years. (as if you said: John lives here for ten years.) because he still lives here, he hasn't moved out

The same happens with Pr Pf Progr, which confuses them more as they don't see the point of expressing the same thing with two tenses, no matter how many times you may try explain to them that in this case it's the emphasis on the duration of the action which is still taking place in the present.

Now the above things come after you tell them, and here is the problem, that in the following they have to see this as Past action with present consequences:

I have read the book. (in Rom we use Indicative trecut (-understand Past Simple) as if we said in Engl I read the book.)

and have read and read do not cover the same meaning!

So, after this, many students understand this sentence:

John has lived here for 10 years.

as John lived here for 10 years. ie he doesn't live here anymore

As far as I have read and asked, many English native speakers see Pr Pf as a past tense while, as I have been taught, it is a present one, hence the name; when it comes to for and since, although the action began at some indefinite time in the past, the results linger on/continue up to the present, when for and since are folowed by time period.

This is it. I apologize if I was a bit unclear at the beggining of my post.
Thank you all and if there are any comments/suggestions, please do!

[5jj]

As far as I have read and asked, many English native speakers see Pr Pf as a past tense while, as I have been taught, it is a present one, hence the name;

I don't think you will find many native speakers who know anything about the language thinking of it is a past tense.

when it comes to for and since, although the action began at some indefinite time in the past, the results linger on/continue up to the present, when for and since are followed by a time period.

This is true of most uses of the present perfect. The action itself, or the results, consequences, implications, have some connection with present time.